brad89 Posted June 2, 2005 Posted June 2, 2005 Does such a thing exist? Can it? We probably can't stop it, but it seems very hard to understand. Gravity holds together the protons and neutrons of atoms nuclei, so how can antigravity work? What I have trouble with is this. Is there an antimatter? Maybe antigravity exists because that is how antimatter and matter relate. Maybe antimatter is gravitational to antimatter. Yet matter to antimatter is antigravity. In fact, is there a proven such thing as antimatter? I have heard mentions of it, but I wondered if it were proven to exist in the scientific community.
timo Posted June 2, 2005 Posted June 2, 2005 Does such a thing exist? Can it? Or to extent your question: What is it supposed to be? What's anti-electromagnetism? We probably can't stop it, but it seems very hard to understand. Things are especially hard to understand if you don't even know what they are. Gravity holds together the protons and neutrons of atoms nuclei No, there's another force called "strong force" that's responsible for nuclei to be stable. What I have trouble with is this. Is there an antimatter? Yes. Maybe antigravity exists because that is how antimatter and matter relate. Maybe antimatter is gravitational to antimatter. Yet matter to antimatter is antigravity. Nice idea, but a) this would still be normal gravity only that antimatter had negative mass and b) it just isn't like that. In fact, is there a proven such thing as antimatter? I have heard mentions of it, but I wondered if it were proven to exist in the scientific community. Still "yes, it's there and it's proven".
brad89 Posted June 2, 2005 Author Posted June 2, 2005 Are you a scientist by any means, because i am only a 9th grader? Anyway, I wonder if you could give me a quick briefing of 'strong force', because i am working on a theory about how the universe began. It has come a long way. In the beginning, I included antimatter as a viable fact, than I disproved it somehow. I wrote a lot of notes on how it works, and who really knows if it is right, but if you could, i could describe my theory. I want to either prove or disprove it, I have done a lot of work on it and I can't seem to stop because I think it is right.
swansont Posted June 2, 2005 Posted June 2, 2005 Are you a scientist by any means, because i am only a 9th grader? Anyway, I wonder if you could give me a quick briefing of 'strong force', because i am working on a theory about how the universe began. It has come a long way. In the beginning, I included antimatter as a viable fact, than I disproved it somehow. I wrote a lot of notes on how it works, and who really knows if it is right, but if you could, i could describe my theory. I want to either prove or disprove it, I have done a lot of work on it and I can't seem to stop because I think it is right. You might consider learning the accepted theories, and why they are the accepted theories, before striking out on your own. You might also consider learning how to Google for basic information. Wikipedia articles on the fundamental forces in general and the strong nuclear force in particular.
Rebel.esd Posted June 3, 2005 Posted June 3, 2005 "Anti-gravity" obvsiously exists, because the universe's expansion is accelerating, not slowing. However, we don't know what it is. Fundamentally we don't really know what gravity is. General Relativity defines it as the warping of spacetime, and the resultant "compulsion" to conform to the curve, whereas newer theories incorporate the elusive "graviton" into their predictions. To make it easy to think about, imagine you have a giant sheet of material, and on it you've placed ball bearings. If someone pulls the material down, the ball bearings rush towards the lowest point. That's like gravity, a curve in a three dimensional spacetime creates a point for matter to flow through, and the curve is increased by the amount of matter present. If somehow we could create something of negative mass (you pulling up on our giant material) we woul have an anti-gravitic-field. I personally have several ideas which i can't talk about for semantics sake.
swansont Posted June 3, 2005 Posted June 3, 2005 "Anti-gravity" obvsiously exists' date=' because the universe's expansion is accelerating, not slowing. However, we don't know what it is. [/quote'] That observation, in and of itself, says nothing about anti-gravity. Acceleration implies some force, but not what kind of force.
Syd Posted June 3, 2005 Posted June 3, 2005 "graviton" sounds good, but i don't think they exist. it can be checked one day. If earth emits gravitons, and they are able to move objects, like me when im jumping, they must have some energy. In time earth should became lighter and lighter, couse of emmision of gravitons. earth mass is changed to energy which makes me unable to fly. what do you think of my proof?
Rebel.esd Posted June 3, 2005 Posted June 3, 2005 That observation, in and of itself, says nothing about anti-gravity. Acceleration implies some force, but not what kind of force. That's why its in quotes. I'm not implying that there are regular amounts of negative mass somewhere in our galaxy. Honestly, I don't see any reason why spacetime can't curve in another direction, the problem just becomes one of how could there be negative mass. In another idea, consider how much mass you have in galaxies. Imagine the "dips" in space time, with large areas in between. Somewhere in that field of space time you'd have a highest point. If human experience had caused us to exist in inter-galactic space, we would have named the 'force' pushing us away. I actually am working on a theory that would explain how negative mass could exist, but, if you've read my other posts, I am just now starting college; this obviously makes it hard for me to build a mathematical framework for such a theory. Also, the term "anti-gravity" is a bad one. Either way, its just gravity. The prefix is just to distinguish the direction of the force...
reverse Posted June 3, 2005 Posted June 3, 2005 So at a micro level..what is it exacly that makes gravity order air above gold. ( I made it gold for sensational effect)
JPQuiceno Posted June 3, 2005 Posted June 3, 2005 So at a micro level..what is it exacly that makes gravity order air above gold. ( I made it gold for sensational effect) Hmm... I didn't understand that statement. Please elaborate, perhaps I can help answer that question.
reverse Posted June 3, 2005 Posted June 3, 2005 An air bubble will float from the bottom of the sea to the surface. A piece of gold will float from the surface of the sea to the bottom.. they have been put in an order. what are the properties that decide this order and how can we alter them. (and, Don’t wear jewellery when you go surfing).
Rebel.esd Posted June 3, 2005 Posted June 3, 2005 Density. The air molecule WANTS to keep falling, but its pushed up by the denser molecules beneath it.
Peppers Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Posted by Syd: In time earth should became lighter and lighter, couse of emmision of gravitons. earth mass is changed to energy which makes me unable to fly.what do you think of my proof? I'm no expert, but I thought gravitons were supposed to be massless in theory. Therefore, earth's mass would not be changed by emmission of gravitons. Also, earth is probably gaining mass from all the space dust and meteorites that hit it.
aaronmyung Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 wow its pretty cool that a 9th grader is getting into it. Rock on little buddy, good luck in the future
reverse Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Density. The air molecule WANTS to keep falling, but its pushed up by the denser molecules beneath it. how do you define density?
brad89 Posted June 4, 2005 Author Posted June 4, 2005 Hell, I would call it how closely smushed together the particles of a substance are.
reverse Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 agree. Normally air is above water...the sky is above the sea...agree? How is it that steam (water) rises from an electric jug into the air?
Syd Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 I'm no expert, but I thought gravitons were supposed to be massless in theory. Therefore, earth's mass would not be changed by emmission of gravitons. Also, earth is probably gaining mass from all the space dust and meteorites that hit it. well, if they carrying some energy / to prevent things from flying/ and e=mc2 this energy is mass. If gravitons exist, object isolated from everthing in time should disappear.
Ophiolite Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 If earth emits gravitons, and they are able to move objects, like me when im jumping, they must have some energy. In time earth should became lighter and lighter, couse of emmision of gravitons.what do you think of my proof?We also attract the Earth. It gets gravitons from us. It is a dynamic exchange, which leaves things as they were.
insane_alien Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 steam is tiny droplets of water that condense in the air to form a fine mist. like clouds these tiny droplets are light enough to be carried up by a thermal. only in this case the hot water provides the heat for the thermal
Syd Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 We also attract the Earth. It gets gravitons from us. It is a dynamic exchange[/i'], which leaves things as they were. You're right, but gravity field exist even when its not attracting objects. Put ball made of iron in isolated space. It will send gravitons, but there will be no other object to send gravitons to the ball.
BigMoosie Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 well, if they carrying some energy / to prevent things from flying/ and e=mc2 this energy is mass. If gravitons exist, object isolated from everthing in time should disappear. They do not carry energy but information. The energy exists as the potential difference between the two object's locations. Before you start arguing this you should recall that photons are massless too.
Recommended Posts